"I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking." The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.

Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

Gonzales is obviously right, and I would like to know how Stimson could even entertain the notion that it might be acceptable to say what he did.

Stimson, Gates or both need to make the essentially the same statement as Gonzales made and set official the record straight.

Irrespective of our views on the war or on the way it has been conducted, we all should be proud of the lawyers who defend these folks and the partners who allow them to do so. It is in the best traditions of the litigation bar since before the Revolution.

Indeed, one of John Adams' signal accomplishments was his defense of British Souldiers during the Boston Massacre.

I would like to know how Stimson could even entertain the notion that it might be acceptable to say what he did.

The Navy forced Hamdan Lawyer Swift to retire AFTER he won in the Supreme Court.

John Yoo says torture is okay.

Cheney says that we have an imperial presidency.

Cheney/Libby out Plame for revenge against Wilson.

Cheney/Oil Execs make plans for Iraq before Iraq.

After Katrina, lucrative contracts are given to non-local, non New Orleans companies that outsource to foreign nationals.

Bush blows the Iraq reconstruction money on Halliburton and other outources and refuse to give local Iraqis a chance to rebuild. This is later acknowledged to be a mistake. Last week's plan includes more billions for Iraq, this time specifically targeting local Iraqi firms.

As a government lawyer, Stimpson's comments are inappropriate, but what's fundamentally wrong with organizing a boycott of the law firms? It happens all the time in other areas (edgy TV productions, etc.). Moreover, this isn't a criminal case in which presumption of innocence and concerns about swaying juries applies. This is a war. Law firms that voluntarily chose to defend terrorists, but get upset when someone informs their corporate clients of that fact are simply being hypocritical.

Whatever the wisdom or lack thereof of Stimson's remarks, I'm not so sure you're right on this one Ann. Most people want terrorists hunted down and killed, not arrested and prosecuted. And I suspect the proportion of the public that regards the Gitmo prisoners as deserving of due process is a lot lower than you think.

I would like to know how Stimson could even entertain the notion that it might be acceptable to say what he did.

I think his attitude wasn't about a desire to refuse representation to the detainee's, but rather to note that to be a lawyer for these detainee's you don't just answer the call of representation but rather you had to be aggressive in pursuing them as clients.

seeing as how most of them don't have american relatives running around picking the lawyers, the lawyers busted their buts for the opportunity to represent terrorists/murderers and enemy's of the state.

Gonzalez is right, of course, but I think that that was prolly stimsons motivation to excercise a little bit of disgust.

Apparently with lawyers, openness and fresh air and transparency are goodies to be shoved down the throats of America when she's in a war, but turn the equation around, and all of a sudden those who are actually working FOR public knowledge are fascists?

I don't get it (snark).

Look, we've seen since 9-11 lawyers and the media use freedom of information as an excuse to perform all kinds of traitorous activity. Obviously, that activity is not without consequences for someone, and the leakers and FOIA'ers have pretty much said "consequences be damned."

Well, consequences for these law firms be damned!

You can bet some folks are going to be following this list, and if there's anything in the free marketplace people can do to punish these lawyers, including publish their personal information on the web, then bring it on, baby.

SMGalbraith said... Prof. Althouse:Hmm, you have no questions about the motives of, for example, the Center for Constitutional Rights in representing these detainees?

It's another to represent them because you believe that the government prosecuting them is more dangerous than the clients themselves. Even though you know the clients are indeed terrorists."

since when does the courtroom check "political" representation (left or right) when the judge says ok, defense, your turn? or is it that you simply don't think that some people should have counsel? and where do you "know the clients are indeed terrorists"? because mr. bush told you so? he is, as you know the only authority and you trust that chucklehead 100% beyond all reasonable doubt that these guys are guilty...so a trial isn't really necessary is it...and interestingly, would you care to cite the conviction rate for those held? just curious? 100%? 50%? 10%? 1%? >1%? NONE?

The entire business stinks to high heaven and your type who makes lipservice bigdeal talk about the sanctity of our constitution and the American Way deserve a swift kick in the ass.

I do agree that Stimson crossed the line as a government employee. I think like Yoo, he was a little too zeleous for his own good - which is why the newer ethics rules have removed that as an ethical requirement.

But I have seen no indication that he has violated any ethical rule whatsoever. And, in particular, if I were to publish the exact same list for the exact same reason, I too would not be violating an ethical rule.

I do think that this is important information and it is silly to pretend like it isn't. A lot of those behind the war, and in particular, behind the continuing incarceration of terrorists at Gitmo, would like to know that their legal fees are funding this.

Before anyone gets too outraged at the idea that this might possibly mean lack of representation to the Gitmo detainees, just remember that there are millions of lawyers in this country, and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of them willing to do this work. These firms only got to jump to the front of the line because of their connections.

The reality though is that this is all a tempest in a teapot. The big companies that hire these top tier law firms are not going to be swayed by this revelation at all. They pay the outrageous fees involved because of a perception that the firms provide that level of product, and that perception is not going to change, regardless of whom the firms chose to represent pro bono - esp. as pro bono work is really window dressing in the first place.

"Gonzales is obviously right, and I would like to know how Stimson could even entertain the notion that it might be acceptable to say what he did."

Actually, notwithstanding the new requirement to provide enemy combatant detainees trials, there is an ongoing, underlying policy dispute over providing detainees trials. Stimson could very easily side with not providing captured enemy combatants trials, (I am utterly unconvinced for this need of trials; 'tis war, not crime) therefore his remarks.

However, because it is now both law and policy to provide captured enemy combatants trials, he should have resigned before giving voice to his displeasure with the firms providing representation.

Longer answer: Many, many people (including many lawyers) believe that employing high-powered lawyers does not result in "adequate representation" and "making sure justice is done." Instead, it means "getting the guilty off" and making sure justice is not done.

Stimson was politically wrong to say it, but I agree with him. Why should these non-citizens be afforded top of the line legal representation, better by leagues than any offered to the average criminal indigent defendant?

Elizabeth, I know. I just found a few pics from a few years back I took, check out this cute . If I make it this year, I'll drop you a note. Ann should start a NOLA thread sometime, I feel guilty about not going back, and keeping up with everything. But it's too damn sad.

SMGalbraith said... Prof. Althouse:Hmm, you have no questions about the motives of, for example, the Center for Constitutional Rights in representing these detainees?

It's one thing to represent unpopular clients out of the principle that even the most odious deserve legal representation.

It's another to represent them because you believe that the government prosecuting them is more dangerous than the clients themselves. Even though you know the clients are indeed terrorists.

uh, are you seriously not aware that hundreds of detainees have been released from gitmo? obviously, those people were not terrorists.

You can bet some folks are going to be following this list, and if there's anything in the free marketplace people can do to punish these lawyers, including publish their personal information on the web, then bring it on, baby.

you want to "punish" lawyers, presumably with physical violence if their home addresses are to be listed, for helping to ensure that possibly wrongfully detained people have access to the justice system to remedy their situation? like i said above, hundreds of detainees have been released. you are a sick person.